Baltic 40 vs C&C 39
How do the Baltic 40 and C&C 39 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Baltic 40 | Baltic 40 | C&C 39 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 39.3 ft11.99 m | 39.3 ft11.96 m |
| Waterline length | 32.8 ft9.98 m | 30.5 ft9.30 m |
| Beam | 12.8 ft3.89 m | 11.5 ft3.51 m |
| Draft | 7.2 ft2.19 m | 6.3 ft1.91 m |
| Displacement | 14,992 lb6,800 kg | 16,750 lb7,598 kg |
| Ballast | 6,173 lb2,800 kg | —— |
| Sail area | 803 ft²74.6 m² | 726 ft²67.4 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 21.13 | 17.74 |
| Displacement / Length | 191 | 264 |
| Comfort ratio | 22.5 | 30.2 |
| Capsize screening | 2.07 | 1.80 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.7 | 7.4 |
Baltic 40 vs C&C 39: the short version
- The Baltic 40 and C&C 39 are close in length (39.3 ft11.99 m vs 39.3 ft11.96 m ).
- The C&C 39 is heavier, displacing about 12% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Baltic 40 carries the more powerful rig (21.1 vs 17.7), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The C&C 39 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the C&C 39 rates better for offshore work (1.80 vs 2.07).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.